Updated 4/6/09

Week 11: Culture

Note: In 2009, we are actually about 1
week behind, what with CSCA, and falling behind a day here and there. So we are
beginning Week 12 on 4/6/09. On that day, we will actually discuss all of these
readings to some degree, and move on from there.

The main questions to ask yourself as you review this essay
(which, is, admittedly hard to read in some spots!) are:

·What is the notion of
“linguistic relativity” (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), and what are “strong” and
“weak’ versions of the hypothesis?

·What are different types
of relationships between language and reality? Which are “stronger” and
“weaker”

oLR-GCS: ________________________________

oLR-CA:
________________________________

oLR-LO:
________________________________

·We are not as worried
about what each of 20 famous philosophers and writers say about linguistic
relativity as much as the overall
argument(s) of the article. How do these areas of research, specifically,
support or not support certain types of relativity?

oSome studies show the differences in ability
relate to experiences, concepts with which lower SES or different-“race”
children are not familiar

oTeaching differences? [social structure?]

oSelf-fulfilling prophecy?

oDifferences?

§Phonology only?

§Negative
concord (agreement of negatives): He don’t know nothin’

§Cf:
“Don’t you want to go to the movies?” “No.”: Responding to the logic of the question, rather than the logic of the proposition (Japanese)

oLabov: “What is termed ‘logical’ in standard
English is, of course, the conventions which are habitual.” (in
Steinfatt, p. 53).

·The
“Other Children” Position: Children learn their first language (esp up to
age 4) largely through dialects of other (and older) children. Thus, “if White
children learn their language through a Black dialect does that make them
‘think Black’?”

·Main
point: If small differences in dialect do not make a difference in thought, how much of a difference is
necessary? (And what can we say of the bi-dialectical child?)

·Some studies show that a skill learned in one
language (e.g., arithmetic) can be transferred and done in another language
with no problem.

·Other studies (Chinese-English) show
difficulties in Chinese in use of counterfactuals (“If I had been….I
would not have…), definite generic article (“The buffalo is becoming extinct,”
using “the buffalo” to refer to a whole class of things rather than an
individual thing), and entification (moving from a complete
sentence (“Bush will be elected”) to an abstract phrase “the election of
Bush”).

·Bi-linguals see more meaning in “function and
content words” than monolinguals

·The unfamiliarity hypothesis (versus
different cognitive structure): Key summary suggests that these studies
“do not provide evidence that Chinese speakers cannot think in terms of counterfacutals, definite generic
articles, or entifications, but that they do
not normally express thoughts using such constructions” (p. 57).

Evidence from Speech
and Hearing Impaired:

·Aphasics: If linguistic relativity:
if one loses a language and has to relearn it, then the language relearning
should rely on early language. Evidence supports this (the “rule of Ribot”),
but more for compound
than for coordinate bilinguals.

·Deaf children: Sensory-motor
cognition actually about the same b/t deaf and hearing, but four years behind
for blind children. “Deaf have the same semantic or categorizing competence as
the hearing” (p. 59).

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
[pp. 60 ff)

·“Language
affects representational thought, not logical operations.”

·General
Claims RE:

oGeneral
Cognitive Structure (GCS)

oCognitive
Areas (CA)

II.Culture and Discourse

·[I will fill in notes more later!]

Some things to watch
for:

Goddard & Wierzbicka:

·What is the “ethnography of communication”? Know the SPEAKING framework! (p. 232)

·What is the “cultural scripts” approach?Bring an example
of a cultural script to class to share during discussion! J

·What are “routines” and “genres,” and how might these vary
from culture to culture?

·Make a chart: comparison and contrast: What are some
characteristic aspects of Japanese, Malay, and Polish styles (watch out—there’s
some Polish stuff in the end, too!)? Yankunytjatara (Australian Aboriginal),
Ewe (routines, genres)

Carbaugh

·What are the main similarities and differences between how
Russians and Americans treat social problems publicly, as seen on Donohue?

Note: Be able to
spend a brief time in groups to
summarize what you have read, and then share with the class! (as follows):

Japanese

Polish

Malay

Yankunytjatara

Ewe

Anna

Amelia

Kierana

Jamie

Ken

Daniel

Stephanie

Zachary

Amanda

Julia

Laura

Allie

Kelvin

Emmanuel

Claire

Kevin

Kathryn

Amy

Tom

Jeremy

Erin

Joshua

Eric

Amber

Peter

Drew

Christopher

Michelle

Skit example:Let’s imagine that Colombia is one of
the cultures. I know there is a communication ritual that Kristine Fitch calls
“salsipuede” (leave if you can), in
which someone tries to leave a social gathering, but the acceptable social norm
is that others try to keep the person from leaving. If the person leaves too
brusquely or too soon, they will be seen as socially incompetent. There are
also other aspects of Colombian communication, such as the balancing of hierarquía (social status difference) and confianza (trust, connectedness to
others), and these play out in the names one uses in direct reference (e.g.,
Titles in formal situations, nicknames among peers).

·When I get to my group, I will share my TTE and
other things I learned about the specific culture that I read about. We will
fill in the “chart” above with things we think the class should know about this
culture and assign someone to share them.

·We would work together a skit about a party. Tom
is trying to leave the party, but Chris and Eric won’t let him. Narrator says
“a half hour later…” Tom tries to leave again, offers stronger excuse. Chris
& Eric give response to the resistance (e.g., offering him a ride home, if
the buses aren’t running anymore; saying he can miss a class now and then and
it won’t hurt him). Narrator says “and still an hour later.” Tom tries to leave
a third time. C & E try to keep him there, but finally let him leave.
Throughout, all of them might call each other nicknames to show connectedness.

·Someone else in our group will tell what we
found out about communication in Colombia.

We will all discuss
the Donohue article (by Carbaugh) together

·Questions
and thoughts for Carbaugh (2005) on Donahue
in Russia

1.Note that, while Carbaugh does not explicitly use
Hymes’ SPEAKING framework for analysis, much of what he does could be
interpreted through the framework (who are the participants, what are the
norms, what are the “ends” of speaking in the two different cultures?)

2.About: Cultural views of

·Personhood
(self)

·Media (what
is shown, how it is shown, the relation of media to reality and social life).
Media is like a “plant” (p. 56)

3.Ethnography: What
is it?! What does it mean to “ground” the analysis of some form of talk (here,
audience research, appropriate mediated discourse) in “a community’s discourse
system” (p. 57)? What is the specific method Carbaugh uses for this study?

4.Some
foundational principles:

·Conversation is “a culturally situated
accomplishment” (p. 59)

·Culture is “a system of expressive practices that
is fraught with feeling, and grandly implicates beliefs about persons, places,
and patterns of living” (p. 60).

2.An “exigency” for direct attention (here, public
discourse of problems)

3.Corrective processes: Response/redress through public
dialogue [but what is the solution…or
is a solution really in mind?] Talk as remedy!
(Note Carbaugh’s earlier work, on which many Americans see “Talk” as both
representative of reality and as a remedy to most relational and social
problems, as opposed to other cultural views of “talk”) and Talk a self-presentation [ultimate goal of
talk: To express one’s own personal desires, thoughts on an issue—freedom of
speech and all that).

·It is important to note that linguistic
equivalency—either in interpersonal translation (as you are learning a
language) or in the translation of scientific social surveys—may involve language equivalency at any of
these levels, and misunderstanding may occur at any level! However, in
communication, we are usually less interested in errors of pronunciation (morphemic)
and even grammar, than we are of symbolic meaning (semantics) and the use of
language to accomplish goals (pragmatics). For an essay on the role of language
equivalency and how it operates in the research design for cross-cultural
research, read: https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMCAI.PDFLevels of
language (class notes): Be able to give an example of each

Some Important Language Concepts
(class notes): Be able to give an example of each

·Once we understand the basics of language, we
can understand some key aspects or terms associated with the study of language:

oSapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
The main idea here is that language not only describes reality but
works to shape the way we see, experience, our social world. If we have
different verb forms (like future subjective, as exists in Portuguese) or
different “lexical choice” (more words to describe colors, camels, snow, etc.),
then we actually experience the world differently. That is, a groups language “creates”
its world or reality (at least its social reality). This is quite contrary to traditional
notion of language merely describing our world. BTW, while originally
widely accepted, the hypothesis is now a little controversial for different
reasons!

oBernstein Hypothesis(not in book): Social
situation dictates language usage. In different situations, we use different
“codes.” Specifically:

§Elaborated versus restricted codes. (Neuliep,
pp. 258 ff). Elaborated code is where everything is spelled out in detail (no
jargon) in a language that can easily be understood by most people in the
situation. Restrictedode is a sort of
linguistic “shorthand” or short-cut that allows people familiar with a
situation to speak in limited terms (ex: Emperor Palatine, in The Revenge of the Sith, tells clone
soldiers, “Initiate Code 66”). This could be cultural dialect or organizational
jargon.In brief:

oCode-switching: The act of switching between
codes. Can refer to switching between elaborated and restricted code (a
necessary skill for good communication—and basis of Communication Accommodation
Theory!) or change between languages (say, going back and forth between Spanish
and English in the same conversation).

oGratuitous
concurrence

Thought Box: Tell
about a time that you moved back and forth between elaborated code or
restricted code. This may have happened in a workplace, where you had a
specific jargon and you had to change to the code of the customers, or if you
spoke a “restricted code” among a group of friends and then had to “code
switch” to elaborated code for your parents.

Some Important Dimensions of Language
Difference across Cultures

What are some dimensions of communication difference that
you can think of? Fill in the list with others, possibly using charts below. Of
course, often, differences are not squarely put into dimensions, but reflect
aspects very specific to the individual “speech communities” that make up
distinct cultures. Here are some that I have come up with (some based on
Neuliep, 2006, pp. 261 ff, but not limited to his discussion).

oDirect versus
Indirect speech

oFormality/informality:

oDifferentiated/undifferentiated:
Differentiated language codes have different “levels” of language
depending on some aspect—usually the status but there might be other aspects—of
the participants. All cultures will have some level of differentiation (for
example, you probably speak differently to your rabbi than you do to your best
buddy at the pool hall than you do to a small child at the park). But some
cultures have whole different “speech registers,” with different verb endings
or even different noun endings, depending on the relative status of the
individual. These codes are more “differentiated.”

oElaborated/animated/succinct:
Elaborated codes (or cultures that use elaborated style) spell
everything out (similar or same as “low context”). In these cultures, we would
expect to find meaning in the words, so there might be lots of words, with the
assumption that language represents or symbolizes reality fairly closely (what
some call a representational view of
language). [Other cultures do not see language primarily as a tool for meaning transfer (a very mainstream
American view, even embedded in many of our notions of communication), but as identity building, as personal expression, or even as resistance to dominance.

oAnimated languages tend to see the purpose of language
as expressive. These cultures might
include much metaphor, repetition, and so on in language; one will look to
language for its artistic, skillful, or aesthetic components (Middle Eastern
approach, possibly some forms of African American discourse).

oOther
cultures will actually mistrust language, feeling that it obscures reality. Thus, the appropriate response to a beautiful
sunrise, to a loud or obnoxious person, or to true love is silence, not words.
In such cultures, language is often understated
or “succinct” (e.g., Japan,
China, some Native American
cultures), although we also see some of this in British communication style,
where language is pragmatic (practical), representational, but still more
succinct than America’s
elaborated style.

oNeuliep
introduces another type of speech, exacting, which he argues is practical—not overly
succinct with lots of silence and nuance, but focusing on “what is needed,”
again following the representational view of language above. He sees the United States
as using this style of language.

Argot: A
language spoken by a group of people, such as criminals, with a restricted
meaning; similar to or the same as cant.
Like a slang.

Cant: A
crypto-dialect, or language spoken by a group to exclude others, used to
exclude meaning from those outside the group.

Note that some of these could be
“restricted codes” (argot, slang), but others, if they are spoken widely and
“naturally,” would not be restricted codes. Someone can code-switch between slang/argot/cant and an elaborated code (spoken
by everyone generally in a culture) just as one can code-switch from Spanish to
English or from AAVE to MAVE. E. T. Hall calls this contexting—switching your level of “context” to match the other
communicator.